So here near Cleveland, about 20 years ago a development went up called Barrington. It was full of McMansions and was bought up by sports stars, music stars, a variety of rich and nearly-rich people.
The problem is that for houses of that size, they need a LOT of room between them. Even with 3/4th acre and full acre lots, the end result was what looked like a bunch of big houses essentially stacked right next to each other. There are other developments in other towns nearby that are similar. Large houses but not more than an acre between them. While what you say is technically correct, the overall look is not attractive.
It really depends on the context. An urban street lined with massive brownstones is nice. A nice little cottage in the woods by itself is nice. Large houses all bunched up, in some random suburban setting, is usually going to look kind of goofy. It would be better to have homes in a range of sizes, with some variation in lot sizes as well. That's going to blend in better with whatever surrounds the homes.
Correct. There are parts of Cleveland that still have large houses from when Cleveland was an industrial powerhouse that are close together, but it looks nicer. Part of that though is absolutely the cultural derision of "nouveau riche" vs "old money" seeping into our perceptions of what looks good and what does not.
The problem is that for houses of that size, they need a LOT of room between them. Even with 3/4th acre and full acre lots, the end result was what looked like a bunch of big houses essentially stacked right next to each other. There are other developments in other towns nearby that are similar. Large houses but not more than an acre between them. While what you say is technically correct, the overall look is not attractive.